Cited by 1,016Behavioral Health and InterventionsSmoking Behavior and CessationDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

A review and analysis of the use of ‘habit’ in understanding, predicting and influencing health-related behaviour

Open access
Gardner, Benjamin·2015·Health Psychology Review

Abstract

The term 'habit' is widely used to predict and explain behaviour. This paper examines use of the term in the context of health-related behaviour, and explores how the concept might be made more useful. A narrative review is presented, drawing on a scoping review of 136 empirical studies and 8 literature reviews undertaken to document usage of the term 'habit', and methods to measure it. A coherent definition of 'habit', and proposals for improved methods for studying it, were derived from findings. Definitions of 'habit' have varied in ways that are often implicit and not coherently linked with an underlying theory. A definition is proposed whereby habit is a process by which a stimulus generates an impulse to act as a result of a learned stimulus-response association. Habit-generated impulses may compete or combine with impulses and inhibitions arising from other sources, including conscious decision-making, to influence responses, and need not generate behaviour. Most research on habit is based on correlational studies using self-report measures. Adopting a coherent definition of 'habit', and a wider range of paradigms, designs and measures to study it, may accelerate progress in habit theory and application.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17437199.2013.876238

Cites

162 of 162 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gardner, B.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Gardner, Benjamin
Venue
Health Psychology Review
Published
2014-01-21
Volume
9
Issue
3
Pages
277-295
ISSN
  • 1743-7199 (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-7202
OpenAlex
W2039701560
Cited by
1,016
References
162
Citations by year
2026: 87 · 2025: 93 · 2024: 101 · 2023: 97 · 2022: 109 · 2021: 98 · 2020: 158 · 2019: 79 · 2018: 65 · 2017: 51 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 1
FWCI
3.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
habit, health behavior, habit theory, stimulus-response associations, impulse generation, conscious decision-making, habit measurement, self-report measures, behavior change
MeSH terms
Habits, Humans, Social Behavior, Health Behavior, Self Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review